I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

I'm sorry that I didn't wrap that post into <subtleSarcasm> tags. I'm flattered that you use my posts as argumentum ad verecundiam.

I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that I know you were being sarcastic. But you are also being pragmatic, as you've always astutely been. I don't fault you for that! Even Satoshi failed at decentralization.

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain.

Carpe diem - cut the down side - be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybwThe simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.

Hub-and-spoke networks add new centralization nodes, and require a complete adaptationof client wallets to a new, completely different payment model. Although so this alternativecan be easily implemented on RSK, is not the native system for fast payments. RSK adoptsthe DECOR+ and FastBlock5 protocols, which allow reaching a 10 seconds average blockrate that does not create incentives for mining centralization, is selfish-mining free andincentive compatible.

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain.

I think the insecurity of the side chain can wreck the Bitcoin block chain. If I am mistaken, I request someone to point out why.

Please see pages 8, 9, and 12 of the Blockstream side chains white paper. It says that the coins on the Bitcoin block chain can be unlocked by presenting a proof-of-work from the side chain, but that this can be invalidated by a longer proof-of-work. So this means that a lie-in-wait attack on the side chain could allow someone to unlock coins on Bitcoin's block chain, spend them, let others spend them in a fanout of derivative transactions, then reverse the Bitcoin transactions by presenting a longer proof-of-work from the side chain invalidating all those Bitcoin block chain transactions. In short, it seems to me a chain reorganization on the side chain can cause a chain reorganization on the Bitcoin block chain.

I am ready to go to sleep, so I am just skimming quickly with my re-reading of that white paper, so perhaps I missed something?

Ethash appears more ASIC resistant as it is more memory bound and needs at least 8x more memory.

The original version that I reviewed for Charles Hoskinson before he formed Ethereum with Vitalik could be easily parallelized and thus would have superior performance on GPUs. Whereas, Monero's hash includes AES-NI instructions and the CPU is roughly at parity with GPUs.

Readers aren't going to understand what we are referring to with this technobabble about latency bound hash algorithms.

Suffice it to say that afaik, Monero has the most CPU friendly hash function deployed. I think it is possible to do better though. Ethash unless they changed it significantly since before Ethereum was conceived is more GPU friendly than CPU friendly. So I presume CPU friendly would be more decentralized, given all other factors being equal.

A hash function being CPU-only would still not be sufficient to prevent the mining from centralizing, due to the other economic factors of economies-of-scale (e.g. more hashrate has lower validation and propagation costs).